Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not have an answer to that. I have nothing in my briefing that says that the testing procedure is not up to scratch. Under the testing procedures at Gatwick and Heathrow, 185,000 people a year are tested, and people are found to have the infection. The recent increase in TB in this country is a cause for concern, given that the number of people suffering from the disease was stable, although the disease had not been eradicated. In the mid-1980s 5,500 people a year were reported with the disease. That has risen to about 7,000 people, so there has not been a dramatic drop. Two-thirds of that number is discovered in people not born in this country. However, if, as the noble Baroness says, our procedures are not meeting international standards, that point will be taken up forthwith.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister agree that concern is properly expressed about this issue, in relation not simply to the potential spread of infection of tuberculosis and HIV in the United Kingdom but also to the potential burden that such individuals may impose on the National Health Service in relation to their treatment? Is there not a case to be made out for requiring legal immigrants wishing to come to this country to undergo screening for these conditions in their native countries, so that those who are infected can be refused visas?

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, while recognising the purpose of this Question and appreciating the answers—particularly in the case of HIV—does the Minister agree that to avoid the necessity of some of the testing that might be required for asylum seekers, especially those from Africa, we should do more to ensure that protective sex is taking place in those countries?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, people who are found to have TB here are treated, whatever their status. There is no argument about that. Their immigration status is irrelevant in that regard. They will be treated as, for a start, it is a public health issue. If they are known to have TB before entering the country, they will not gain entry. As I say, screening processes need to be stepped up to screen people before they leave their own countries, particularly in countries where there is a high risk of TB. If people show signs of ill health or mention ill health at ports of entry to this country, under the immigration procedures put in place in 1971 Immigration Service officials can ask them to undergo screening there and then. As I say, at the present time 185,000 screenings take place a year at Heathrow and Gatwick.

Lord Bach: My Lords, it is fairly outrageous and cheeky of the noble Lord to say that we are careless of traditions. That is completely unfair given that this Government have spent more on defence over a continued period than any other for 20 years. The noble Lord's comment is a bit rich. After all, the noble Lord supports a party which when last in power reduced planned defence spending by 15 per cent. Therefore, I shall not take any lessons from the noble Lord on that although, of course, he asked his question in the normal charming way.
	Of course, the importance of Army bands is very much recognised. They will continue their long and illustrious history of being primarily linked with regiments and corps to help support and perpetuate the regimental ethos of the Army. That ethos is as important today as it ever has been.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, have efforts been made to re-role those bandsmen rather than making them redundant? As many bandsmen have nuclear, biological and chemical training and are trained as medics, would it not be cost-effective to re-role them rather than retrain other people? Following the noble Lord's answer to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, is he aware that an election may come round soon?

Lord Bach: My Lords, on the noble Lord's last point, I am aware of that matter. As regards the noble Lord's first point, I shall certainly ensure that that is considered. As I say, redundancies will constitute a small number of those who will leave the Corps of Army Music. The remaining reduction will be achieved through natural wastage and by limiting the extensions of soldiers employed on short-term engagements. That is the same as elsewhere in the Armed Forces but I shall, of course, take away the idea that we should consider re-roling the relevant people.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not know the answer to that question. All I know is that this Government have increased the defence budget over the past number of years, in absolute marked contrast to the party of the noble Lord opposite.

Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords. As part of implementing the Children Act 2004, two particular sets of draft guidance make it clear that play is an important part of recreation; that is, statutory guidance on inter-agency co-operation to improve the well-being of children, and guidance on the children and young people's plan. Additionally, the nine inspectorates and commissions that inspect children's services have proposed that joint area reviews will address all children's services against 42 key judgments, one of which is that there is a range of accessible recreational provision for children and young people.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we would all like to hear some more details about that childhood; it sounds extremely intriguing. I am not sure that the noble Lord has changed. However, he is absolutely right. One of the things that we will be looking at when we are inspecting, and Ofsted will have a role in this too, is whether new play provision is safe, accessible and equal in terms of access for all children. Our streets are not as safe as they were. Part of the emphasis that we want to put on better neighbourhoods and safer neighbourhoods is freeing up proper spaces for children to be safe to play.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that children need to learn to play, and that the performing arts can make a very important contribution to helping children find ways of expressing themselves through play? Are encouragement and funding available for organisations that are developing techniques using the performing arts in this way?

Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister say anything about the logistical difficulties mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, as having prevented the force even reaching the target level of 3,300 troops, which was specified in the original resolution at the end of October 2004? Will she further say when the Security Council will consider the recommendation by Mr Jan Pronk that there be an increase in the strength of the force to at least 8,000, and that the mandate of the force be extended to the protection of the civilian population?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not know. However, I know that the logistic capabilities are part of the review being looked at at the moment. When the UN report comes forward, there will be more discussion about further ways in which the United Nations can help to strengthen the logistic position on the ground of the AU force. That may be through logistics and—as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, suggested—strengthening numbers on the ground.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in answering this Question, I am not repeating my right honourable friend's Statement in another place, but covering its salient points. Therefore, my response will be a little longer than would be customary in answering a Starred Question.
	As the House is aware, elections were held in Zimbabwe last Thursday, 31 March. The declared results gave ZANU-PF 78 seats, the Movement for Democratic Change 41 seats, and independents one seat. With 30 further seats which are appointed—the gift of the president—that declared result will give ZANU-PF the two-thirds majority required for amending the Zimbabwe constitution.
	Those are the official published results. However, there is strong evidence that they do not reflect the free democratic will of the Zimbabwean people. It is true that there was less violence than in 2000 and 2002 but, overall, the election process was seriously flawed. Thousands were turned away from the polling booths. There are serious unexplained discrepancies between votes tallied and the official number announced. Other abuse was rife—food aid misused, ghost voters, a lack of equal access to the media, the use of draconian security legislation, and an election commission packed with ZANU-PF supporters.
	If Mr Mugabe had nothing to hide over the conduct of the elections, he would have allowed full access by the international media and experienced external election observers. However, key observers were banned, including from the Commonwealth, the EU and—most revealingly—the SADC parliamentary forum.
	The report of the Commission for Africa rightly set out the need for stronger action by the international community to address Africa's problems. The commission also made it crystal clear how much bad governance had blighted parts of Africa and frustrated people's hopes of building for themselves a better and more prosperous future. Tragically, there is no more powerful example than that in Zimbabwe.
	Given all this, my ministerial colleagues and I are surprised and saddened that Zimbabwe's neighbours have chosen to ignore the obvious and serious flaws in these elections and have declared them fair. But many in southern Africa have spoken about the reality of Zimbabwe. Just two months ago, Archbishop Desmond Tutu said that Zimbabwe was "a huge blot on the record" of the world's poorest continent.
	The United Kingdom will continue to work with our international partners for a return to accountable, democratic government which represents the rule of law and human rights in Zimbabwe. The EU Commission's position on Zimbabwe is the strongest on any country in Africa. It includes targeted sanctions against the Government of Zimbabwe and an arms embargo.
	Meanwhile, the United Kingdom has made a major contribution to ensure that Zimbabwe's food shortages do not lead to famine by donating over £71 million in food aid since September 2001. A strong statement about the elections was issued last night by the EU presidency, concluding that the election could not be judged to be free and fair and called on Zimbabwe to restore democracy. International measures show the wide condemnation of President Mugabe's ruinous policies. Until Mugabe and his regime respond, they will continue to be isolated internationally.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and time does not allow me to respond in detail to all the numerous points that she raised. But I must confess some surprise that neither here nor in the other place has a Statement been offered by the Government on this grim and ugly issue and that it has had to be squeezed out of Ministers by our questioning today.
	Numerous other governments made statements over the weekend and all pointed out, as the Minister has done, that this was a fraudulent victory, secured in a climate of fear and intimidation. America, Australia, New Zealand and many others have been particularly robust, but, so far, until this moment, not the United Kingdom.
	Is it not crystal clear that this matter should now go to the UN Security Council? We are told again and again that such an attempt would fail, but has it even been tried? In the changing atmosphere, should it not be tried again? Who is going to stand up in the Security Council to defend the actions of Mugabe in ruining his country and creating growing starvation? Why has there been so little pressure on South Africa to take a stand against what is happening on its doorstep? Is it not time that that should happen?
	The declared objective of British foreign policy and of the Minister's own office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is supposed to be:
	"sustainable development, underpinned by democracy, good governance and human rights".
	None of those exists in Zimbabwe. Is it not time that we should be saying so much more loudly and applying effective sanctions through our European partners, who so far have been remarkably tepid in their actions, much more vigorously?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I really must take issue with the noble Lord. I do not think that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, nor my honourable friend Mr Mullin, can be criticised for any lack of robustness on the question of Zimbabwe. They have been consistent and the noble Lord is aware of the effort that has gone into bringing together the 25 countries of the EU, the 50-plus countries of the Commonwealth and the fight that there has been—the noble Lord knows this—in the Commonwealth to ensure that Zimbabwe was barred from its councils.
	The noble Lord also knows that this country is singled out over and over again by the Government of Zimbabwe as still having colonial ambitions upon that country. That is why this country has worked with others and will continue to work with others.
	The noble Lord asked why we do not try a little harder in the UN. Does the noble Lord really want to give Mr Mugabe the comfort of a UN Security Council resolution being denied? Does he really want Mr Mugabe to be able to turn around and say, "There you are—after all, they would not vote for it in the UN"? That would provide the kind of comfort to Mr Mugabe that none of us wants to give.
	There is absolutely no doubt that we all feel strongly on this issue. I have answered questions on it many times in the past eight years. My noble friend Lady Amos has answered many questions. This is a wretched, ruthless regime in Zimbabwe. It is masquerading as a legitimate democracy. It is not. It is pretending to serve its people. It does not do so. It has reduced its economy to the worst performing in Africa and the fastest shrinking in the world. It is hiding behind false and spurious accusations against this country of colonial ambitions and is thereby claiming the support of its neighbours which it does not deserve.
	This statement made a robust point about the disappointment and the sadness that we feel about the way that Zimbabwe's neighbours have reacted. That is the point. It is a real difficulty in Africa and the noble Lord knows it.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, is it not the case that within this House there is no disagreement whatever about the tragic situation in Zimbabwe? It is a matter of extreme regret that the noble Lord who asked this Private Notice Question should have introduced such a sour note in trying to show differences within this House which do not exist? Does he not realise that he is playing exactly into the hands of President Mugabe, who will say, "Look, they cannot even agree in the House of Lords about what happens"?
	We know for certain that there are serious doubts about the Zimbabwe election. In fact there seems to be no doubt that the election was rigged. Does that make a difference? We have said in this House time and time again that we want free, democratic elections in Zimbabwe? We have said time and time again that pressure must be maintained on Mugabe and his regime? So it must. But to make that effective, we must work with as many international partners as we can and not simply condemn President Mbeki or whoever.
	If the people of Zimbabwe are to have some decent future, we must learn to work together to bring that about.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, the 10 minutes are up for the procedure that we have just concluded. I wish to raise a little matter of some changed business for the rest of the week, which, with permission, I should like to spell out. A sheet available in the Printed Paper Office will provide the details, so if anyone were minded to take notes there would be no need.
	As the House may have noticed, it has been suggested that there should be a Dissolution of Parliament and a General Election on 5 May. The consequences of that for our business are considerable for the rest of the week and are as follows.
	The House will meet tomorrow at 2.30 p.m., as is usual, will meet at 11 a.m. on Thursday and, if necessary, there will be a further meeting on Friday. Parliament will be prorogued either on Thursday or Friday, depending upon the progress of business. Dissolution will take place by proclamation on Monday, 11 April. That does not involve us at all; it happens in a way that has worked over the centuries and I trust that it will on this occasion. The general election will take place on 5 May. The new Parliament will be summoned on Wednesday, 11 May, for the election of a Speaker and swearing in in the Commons and for swearing in here. The State Opening will be on Tuesday, 17 May.
	I turn to the consequences for today's, tomorrow's and Thursday's business. Today, we shall proceed with business as on the Order Paper. There is one additional piece of routine information, which your Lordships will have seen on the Annunciator. With permission, a Statement on postal voting will be repeated by my noble friend Lady Ashton immediately after, following my Statement, my noble friend the Leader has moved her Motion concerning a change to the Standing Orders. Then we shall continue with the Committee stage of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. Extensive discussions have taken place with the usual channels, as is normal on these occasions, and it is expected that we shall be able to conclude the Committee stage of that Bill today.
	So far as concerns tomorrow and Thursday, the following business has been agreed. First, in order for the decks to be cleared, I am happy to say that my noble friends Lady McIntosh and Lord Drayson have both kindly agreed to withdraw their debates tomorrow. I am sure that the whole House will wish to record its appreciation.
	In the light of that, tomorrow's business will begin, as usual, with Prayers and Starred Questions. My noble friend the Leader will then move the customary Business Motion, which, among other things, enables more than one stage of a Bill to be taken on the same day. We shall then proceed to the Third Reading of the Railways Bill, the remaining stages of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, the Committee and remaining stages of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill and the Committee and remaining stages of the Drugs Bill. We shall then complete the Committee stage and remaining stages of the Gambling Bill. We shall conclude tomorrow's business with the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2005, which is already scheduled to be on the Order Paper.
	Tomorrow, we may also take the Report stage and Third Reading of the School Transport Bill, but that depends on discussions and negotiations, which are still proceeding. Of course, as noble Lords can judge from that list, the House may sit beyond 10 o'clock tomorrow night. The good news is that the Refreshment Department, with its customary alacrity, has agreed to provide what is required in the Dining Room.
	As I said earlier, Thursday will begin at 11 o'clock with Prayers and Starred Questions. We shall then have the Second Reading and remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill and the Appropriation Bill. We shall then consider Commons amendments to the Disability Discrimination Bill, the Education Bill and the Inquiries Bill, which have already passed through this House, and any other messages that may be received from the Commons. As usual, there will be a speakers' list for the Second Reading of the Finance Bill and that will be put up in the Whips Office immediately.
	Finally, the Clerk of the Parliaments has agreed that the Public Bill Office will accept amendments to any Bill in advance and will also relax as much as possible the deadlines for tabling amendments. Tonight, amendments may be tabled up to 6 p.m. As I am sure the House will understand and appreciate, it is difficult for us all to reach agreement on these matters, but I hope that this Business Statement commends itself to the House.

Lord Roper: My Lords, I agree that in general there has been a wide consensus on the programme of work, which is set out before us in the Business Statement that has just been made by the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms. However, on certain important Bills—in particular, the Charities Bill—a great deal of hard work was done in Grand Committee, and we on these Benches much regret that it has not been possible for that Bill to reach the statute book in this Session.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, when I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I always reflect on the time when he was quite a tough-minded Whip in the other place. I was not exactly in fear and trembling of him but I recognised then that he understood, as I am sure he does now, that decisions on business always involve compromises about what time can be spent on different aspects. He mentions the interests of democracy, but I would have thought that the interests of democracy would be served by the Commons passing the Bill after scrutiny. Clearly, all sides agree that it is a Bill that will be of benefit to the people of this country.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, on the contributions from the two Front Benches, from the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Roper, I appreciate the co-operation and the manner in which it has taken place. As is always the case, it has involved all of us making compromises and none of us achieving precisely and exactly what he or she would like.
	I recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Roper, on the Charities Bill. I know it is a Bill that many people want. It was included in the Queen's Speech. My view of the Queen's Speech was that it included pretty well everything that anyone could reasonably hope for. Who knows, a future Queen's Speech may include something similar to the Charities Bill.
	On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I acknowledge that many of these Bills are long and complicated, but from his very long experience in this House and in the other place he will recognise that there are always accelerated procedures at this time in every Parliament. The discussions that have taken place between the various Front Benches, which I hope reflect the views of many Back Benchers as well, will mean that, while no one achieves everything that he wants in the Bill, there will be an acceptable compromise that will enable the Bill to pass on to the statute book as quickly as possible.
	In response to the noble Lord, Lord Boston, it has always been an ambition of mine to protect Recess dates. I am strongly in favour of that. I fear that I cannot give any guarantees about the next Parliament as we do not know what we shall be doing in the next Parliament. My strong commitment to protect Recess dates may be an added reason to vote Labour.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I noted what he said about the House of Commons having discussed and passed the police Bill, but this is supposed to be a bicameral, not a unicameral, Parliament. A Bill should not become an Act until it has received due process and discussion in both Houses, but it will not receive that in this House. I believe that that is an undermining of our parliamentary system. Once again, I implore the Government and the Opposition to reconsider their position on this very contentious and important Bill.

Lord Rennard: My Lords, let us not forget that, a year ago, we were assured by Ministers in this House and in another place that the sort of problems that we now know occurred in Birmingham with postal voting could not occur. I believe that the country owes a great debt of gratitude to Judge Mawrey for helping to expose what he called a,
	"massive, systematic and organised fraud".
	A debt of gratitude is also owed to Mr John Hemming for his perseverance in pursuing this issue. As the judge in the case said yesterday:
	"when all that is said and done, Mr Hemming was right and his critics were wrong. He said that there was a massive, Birmingham-wide electoral fraud by the Labour Party and there was in fact a massive, Birmingham-wide electoral fraud by the Labour Party".
	Mr Hemming, he said,
	"emerges from the case with credit which is more than can be said for those police officers who treated his complaints as no more than Operation Gripe".
	The case in Birmingham highlights how wrong Ministers were to give us those assurances a year ago. I see from the Statement today that the Minister is suggesting that new measures are being taken to toughen up on procedures, but is she aware that the new commission guidelines, to which she referred, while perhaps being more realistic, are softer than the guidelines that applied a year ago when this fraud took place.
	We have been assured that there will be tough action by police against fraud in such matters. We were assured of that a year ago, before the June elections in which fraud took place. When people in Birmingham were concerned about that huge fraud, the initial police reaction was to dismiss it entirely as sour grapes. What greater assurance can we have now that the police will take instances of alleged fraud more seriously in this general election?
	The case has shown how hard it is under the present rules to detect and assess the level of fraud in postal voting; how reluctant hard-pressed police officers can be to pursue fraud that may cheat people of their democratic rights; and how widespread fraud is perfectly possible under the system. All parties agree that postal voting should be a legitimate option for voters, but we must as a matter of urgency reform the process thoroughly after the general election.
	In the meantime, there are a number of steps that could be taken, if all parties agreed on them, before this general election—if there was sufficient goodwill. First, we could have the postal votes counted separately in the general election. That would help us to see more obviously whether something was amiss in the system. Secondly, the forms by which people apply for a postal vote could be publicly available in the same way as are the declarations of identity that accompany the ballot papers when they are returned. It is possible for parties to scrutinise those declarations of identity to satisfy themselves afterwards about who has signed the declaration. The parties should also be able to see the forms by which people apply for postal votes.
	From the Birmingham case, we have seen how difficult it is to gather such evidence in time, at great expense, to pursue the case. The period for launching an election petition should be changed from 21 days to, perhaps, two months, to allow sufficient time for people to gather the evidence necessary for an investigation into potential fraud, if that is the only option open to them.
	Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, a requirement could be made on presiding officers to maintain a list of all those people who turn up to polling stations only to find that someone has previously claimed a postal vote in their name. At present, they are denied a vote. At the moment, if they turn up to a polling station and they have not registered for a postal vote, but someone has previously claimed their vote by turning up to a polling station, they can be given a further ballot paper. If it may be significant to the result, that ballot paper may be counted. But if you go to a polling station to find that someone in your name has claimed a postal vote on your behalf, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. That would be a sensible reform to the process that could be easily and speedily introduced.
	Finally, the Government—and all parties—should show their support for upholding democratic principles by saying clearly before the election and in time for voters to judge their statement that they rule out any further extension of postal voting until the major sources of abuse have been removed.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, first, completely understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, was unable to be here for the beginning of the Statement. I take very seriously what has happened in Birmingham and I condemn completely and utterly the actions of those who have been found wanting, to put it at its mildest, in what they have done. I treasure our democracy, as I know that every Member of your Lordships' House does—although we find ourselves in a slightly odd position in that—and I take it very seriously.
	It is fair to say that in his remarks the judge made it clear that he attributed no blame to the national Labour Party. He was very clear about where he placed that blame, which is right and proper. So although I very much regret what happened in Birmingham, it is not something for which the national Labour Party takes responsibility, in that sense. Our responsibility is to ensure that these matters are dealt with properly. Noble Lords will have read the statements issued by the Labour Party about ensuring that we work closely with those in Birmingham to ensure that elections are now run properly.
	I recognise the criticisms that the judge made and accept that it was right and proper for him to make them. However, it is also right to say that the remarks attributed by the judge to the Department for Constitutional Affairs left off the end of the statement. We stated:
	"However, we are not being complacent about the issue and are planning to issue a number of further safeguards into the electoral process to combat any possible fraud".
	It is important to recognise that the Government take that extremely seriously.
	As the noble Baroness said, a large number of people prefer not to use postal voting and that is right and proper. But, as noble Lords will know from the history of postal voting, many people for one reason or another find it impossible to go to the polling station at the appropriate time and it is right and proper that we offer them alternative ways to exercise their democratic right.
	I, for one, am keen that as we move into a new era of technology we exploit all opportunities to encourage people to exercise their democratic right, provided—I accept this point—that we can maintain safety and security in so doing. It is wrong, as I fear that the noble Baroness was suggesting, simply to say that we stick with one method, not recognising that some people in our society find it physically difficult, because of disability and other reasons, to go to a polling station. I can remember that as a young mum with small children it was pretty difficult to get to the polling station in the rain—although of course I always made it. It is always important to think carefully about the opportunities that we give people.
	However, I agree about the central point of ensuring that people can vote in safety and secrecy and know that their ballot is counted. I do not accept that this is complete tarnishing, by any stretch of the imagination. I repeat that it is important to recognise that these are isolated incidents. They raise important and difficult issues, but they are not tantamount to widespread fraud in this country. That is completely wrong. We have 6,000 wards, and only four wards are in question. For many reasons, but not least to ensure that our public message is clear, we must be clear about the integrity of our system.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said that the new guidelines are softer. That is interesting, but they have not yet been circulated, so he knows more than I do. Perhaps he could supply me with a copy of them. They are currently being considered through the Electoral Commission. I do not believe that they will be softer; they are meant to be clearer and more certain. I recognise the noble Lord's great experience in all matters concerning elections and his comments on the judgment relating to the police. As I said, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs will meet the Association of Chief Police Officers tomorrow. Very much on his mind will be discussions on how we protect the ballot appropriately for the general and other elections.
	We will consider the particular issues raised by the noble Lord. It is important to pick up suggestions that are made. I shall not try to do so now, but will do so properly. He will recognise that, having accepted many of the recommendations in Voting for change, we need to bring forward primary legislation to make the changes. Not long ago I in your Lordships' House, I answered questions from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who I see is not in his place today, on observers at elections. We need primary legislation to alter who can be at a count: something that we are looking to do.
	We have an additional £20 million for the 2005 elections, compared to 2001; £10 million of that is to cover the extra cost of the increased demand for postal votes. It will cover costs of staffing, and so on. We have written to all returning officers asking them to think proactively about what they can do; that will be followed up. I trust that that money will be wisely spent to ensure that we deal with all the issues raised.
	Much has been made of the four areas where we had all-postal ballots. None of the allegations reflects on them in any way—there were allegations, but there have been no convictions in any of those areas.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not think that it has anything like the significance of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.
	My point was that, if the Labour Party nationally had been held to account by the judge, I would be the first to come to your Lordships' House and apologise: it was not. Responsibility was put at the door of what were seen to be particular practices that were inappropriate at best, and corrupt at worst. I am sorry that it happened, and I think that it is important that the Labour Party take its responsibilities seriously, but I would not for one moment suggest anything other than that this party believes absolutely 100 per cent in democracy. That is critical.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, sometimes I cannot win. Yesterday, it was clear to me that we should make a Statement on the matter, and I felt that it was right and proper to make the Statement to Parliament, rather than on the "Today" programme. I also think that it was important to have the full judgment before us—as I said, I have not had a chance to read the 192-page judgment in detail, although I shall—to make sure that we did not in any way say anything that was not appropriate. I make no apology for coming to the House first; that is right and proper.
	The thing that I find difficult about the debate is that much of the opposition to which noble Lords have referred and the famous ping-pong related to the all-postal voting pilots. They are nothing to do with these votes, which were run on traditional lines, as it were. The point that I was making was that it was important to consider the issue in the context of the national voting system that we have and the way in which postal votes are used.
	I accept responsibility and accountability in the sense that it is important that the Government act now with the Association of Chief Police Officers, returning officers and the Electoral Commission to deal with the issues properly. When I said that I did not believe that it was a national Labour Party issue, I was referring to the fact that the judge was not suggesting that the national Labour Party was fraudulent or corrupt in any way—quite the opposite. The judge was saying that it was clear that the issue had arisen in the Birmingham Labour Party and therefore the responsibility of the national Labour Party is to deal with that. The party has taken the action that I mentioned.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that the Committee will forgive me for speaking somewhat out of turn, but I know that there has been a great deal of anxiety about two parts of the Bill. I thought that it would be useful to the Committee if I indicated the position of the Government now.
	The first matter concerns the provisions relating to incitement of religious hatred. Members of the Committee will know that a great deal of time was spent on that issue at Second Reading and that the Government profoundly believe that an offence of incitement to religious hatred is necessary in order to provide equality of protection for our communities. The protection needed is from extremist activity and the type of activity that contributed to the disturbances in Bradford and Burnley in 2001. We believe that it is time that we reject such behaviour wholeheartedly and make a stand about the type of society in which we want to live. From the Second Reading debate, I know that that is a view strongly held by the Members of this House.
	That said, we are in an unusual situation. The election has now been called. Other parties have made it clear that they oppose the provision as drafted. Given all the other important measures in the Bill, including those to help defeat organised crime and animal rights extremists, it would be wrong to lose the whole Bill for the sake of that one measure.
	None the less, it is with considerable regret that I can advise the Committee that the Government will not oppose the Motions in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain; namely, that Clause 124 and Schedule 10 do not stand part of the Bill. However, the Government remain firmly of the view that there should be equality for those of all faiths, and of none, in law. We cannot see why it is right to retain protection in law for Jews and Sikhs, but wrong not to extend it to Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists and other faiths. It remains the firm and clear intention of this Government to give the people of all faiths the same protection against incitement to hatred on the basis of their religion.
	The other matter that caused a deal of concern, which it might help the Committee if I deal with at this stage, relates to custody officers. I am aware of concerns about Clauses 116 and 117, which provide for the civilianisation of custody officers. I can assure the Committee that there is no intention to dilute the key role of the custody officer, nor to dilute the ability of the custody officer to act independently of the investigative process.
	Dealing with the skills and abilities issue, the chief officer must be satisfied that a person designated as a staff custody officer is suitable, capable and has received adequate training. National occupational standards, developed by Skills for Justice, are already in place and have formed the basis for an integrated competency framework, which sets out the tasks and outcomes to be achieved in the custody officer role.
	Centrex, the national police training agency, is currently developing guidance that, in turn, will set out how the standards are to be achieved. As a result of those initiatives, we will have clearly set out occupational standards for use by both police and police staff employed in that task. As regards authority, the fact is that the authority and the independence of the role is set out in PACE, which provides the custody officer with recourse to a superintendent in the event that his or her authority is questioned. That will not change.
	We fully recognise that it serves the interests of no one to undermine the authority of a custody officer. In rolling out these provisions we will ensure that that message is heard loud and clear by all concerned. We know that this is an issue that has caused anxiety. We hope that the clarity with which I have just expressed our intent will greatly assist Members of the Committee, so that this will be a matter with which they may feel able to be content.

Lord Dholakia: I support Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond, and to which I have added my name. Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 are tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Harris. As we made clear in the debate on Second Reading, we do not have any objections in principle to the setting up of SOCA, but it is right to point out that the agency will be a unique body in this country and it is only right to address some of the anomalies, as we see them.
	My noble friend Lady Harris, a one-time member of a police authority, has done much research work in relation to our amendments, and I am sorry that she is not able to contribute fully to the debate because of her recent accident.
	Schedule 1 covers the board of the SOCA. It is most important that the composition of the board for this new agency is right and therefore we wish to add the suggestions made in Amendments Nos. 3 and 5. We are concerned that, under the provisions of paragraph 1, the Secretary of State has been granted too wide a discretion on the make-up of the board. We believe it is important that SOCA should benefit from the experience of existing law enforcement agencies, will serve their needs and will be accountable to them. These amendments would mean that SOCA would more closely resemble the service authorities currently governing the work of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. We also believe it essential for the maintenance of the rule of law that SOCA is subject to independent oversight and that it should not have such a close and exclusive relationship with a single government department.
	The tripartite balance between the Secretary of State, the board of SOCA and the director-general is presently skewed, giving too much power to the Secretary of State. It is essential for a rebalancing to take place on the membership of the agency. Left as it is, there would be little scrutiny of its work, which none of us would like to see. Some form of accountability must be provided. Giving this scrutiny to a Cabinet committee completely politicises the agency. Where is there any sort of cross-party view of what the organisation will be doing? At the very least, it could be subject to the scrutiny of the proposed Joint Committee on security—or whatever it is called. It is not acceptable to appoint a board which does not reflect all the bodies which have a legitimate interest in the work of the agency.
	We are broadly supported in our amendments by the suggestion which has been put forward by Justice. The agencies to be replaced by SOCA, the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service, are maintained by service authorities established by the Police Act 1997. These service authorities have varied memberships. The National Crime Squad's website states that the service authority includes independent members, police authority members, senior police officers, a Customs officer, a member of the Security Service and a senior civil servant from the Home Office. The service authority therefore benefits from a breadth of experience that spans most of the key agencies and stakeholders that the NCS needs to work with. Given that, the structure of SOCA must maintain in some way this level of independence and pluralism.
	There are no external or independent members on the board, no members appointed by other law enforcement agencies, and no members appointed by the police authorities. There are no requirements in paragraph 1 on the make-up of the category of ordinary members appointed by the Home Secretary. He must consult with Scottish Ministers before appointing the chairman, but need not consult with anyone on the appointment of the ordinary members.
	It is essential for the maintenance of the rule of law that law enforcement agencies be subject to independent oversight and that they have a measure of operational independence from the Executive. It is highly undesirable that an agency with such extensive powers in relation to information gathering, investigation and prosecution, should have such a close and exclusive relationship with a single government department.
	The current structure of the board may result in a lack of genuine transparency and accountability. We believe that it provides inadequate safeguards against interferences with fundamental rights and ultimately promotes the politicisation of important policing functions. We therefore recommend in the strongest terms that it should be reinforced with independent oversight and that such oversight is maintained.
	The purpose of Amendment No. 5 is to rectify this situation and suggests a series of people who should be represented on the SOCA board.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I shall be very happy to assist the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, as far as I can. It is quite clear that certain issues were raised at Second Reading which gave rise to concerns on the part of both Her Majesty's loyal Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Party. In my responses to the amendments as they arise, I shall seek to allay those concerns by giving fuller explanations of how the Government intend to respond to the matters raised by each of the two parties.
	The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is right to highlight the fact that the major arrangement has been in relation to incitement to religious hatred, which caused the most contention. I also made reference to the role of custody officers and I shall now turn to deal with other issues which, although less contentious, are still matters of concern. As we go through the issues, I shall indicate on each amendment the way in which they will be dealt with.
	If, as I hope, I am able to satisfy the Committee that the Government's explanations are sound, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has indicated that she would not seek to move some of her amendments. It is very difficult for me to pre-empt her because the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, will wait to see whether I hold good in my explanations and my promises.
	So, with that proviso, it might assist if I now dealt with Amendments Nos. 1 to 5, which have been spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I hope that my explanations will be sufficient to quieten the beating hearts that have raised concerns about the next group of amendments, which includes Amendment No. 6 through to Clauses 9 and 10 stand part. I shall resist certain of those amendments but I may be in a position to accept other amendments which deal adequately with the issues.
	I turn to the explanations on the first group of amendments. The effect of the three amendments standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, would be to alter the balance of the SOCA board's membership and draw it further away from the normal practice of other non-departmental public bodies. While I commend her desire to ensure the best governance arrangements for SOCA, I can tell her that her fears about political influence over the board are wholly unfounded. Let me explain why. The ordinary members of the board will be appointed on merit and, once appointed, will take decisions on the basis of their own independent judgment. They are in no sense the representatives of the Home Secretary.
	Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 provide that the number of ordinary and ex officio board members must be the same. At this point it is worth reminding the Committee that, typically, the board of a non-departmental public body is composed entirely of the equivalent of ordinary members. We have therefore already moved a considerable way in the direction proposed by the noble Baroness in providing for the appointment of ex officio members.
	The role of ordinary members is vital. They will be drawn from a variety of backgrounds, with a wealth of experience, and will ensure the accountability of the executive members of SOCA. If the board of SOCA is not simply to act as the director-general's management committee, it is important that the non-executive members are in a clear majority. I therefore commend the existing structure to the Committee.
	Amendment No. 4 would limit the role that the chair is able to play in the decision-making process of SOCA's board. This is an untenable situation considering that the chair has overall responsibility for ensuring that the agency fulfils the aims and priorities set out by statute and the Home Secretary. Once again, this proposal goes against the grain. The chairman must have a full role in decision making.
	Turning to the amendments standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, I respectfully suggest that these proposals would make SOCA's board similarly unbalanced—and, indeed, unmanageable—in a way that neither of them would like or intend.
	I must stress again that SOCA will not be a police force, although it will clearly be a law enforcement agency. It will work very closely with police forces in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but also with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, the intelligence agencies and other organisations involved in tackling organised crime. As it will not be a police force, it follows that it would be inappropriate to mirror the tripartite framework on the SOCA board.
	Similarly, we do not see the case for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the Immigration Service to be represented on the board. We accept that these will be important stakeholders, but no more or less important than a host of other agencies with which SOCA will need to work. We want the ordinary members to be appointed on the basis of the skills, experience and independent judgment they can bring to the agency's deliberations, not because they represent a particular organisation or interest.
	It is also worth pointing out that the effect of Amendment No. 5 would be that the SOCA board would comprise a minimum of 16 individuals—that is, 10 ordinary members, the chairman, the director-general and four planned ex officio members. We submit that this would be too big for the efficient and effective conduct of the board's business.
	In the light of these explanations, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw the amendment, anticipating that I shall accept Amendment No. 10 and the submission on Clause 10 stand part, which we shall come to next.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank the Minister for giving, as ever, a full response both to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and myself. I appreciate the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who is right to seek to clarify where we might be going with the remainder of the Bill today. As the Minister said, I am eagerly awaiting every word to ensure that we are both going down more or less the same route.
	The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was particularly right to refer to the representations that have been made by the Police Federation and others. I have had meetings with the Police Federation, read its briefings with great care and, indeed, where possible, sought to refer to them, not only in my speaking notes but in tabling some of my amendments. I have sought to distil from that some of the concerns felt and achieve some movement today, which I think we are now seeing from the Minister. I hear what she says about her refusal to accept my first group of amendments. I bear that with equanimity. The noble Baroness argues that I should have no concern because the board of SOCA will be independent and the people who are appointed to it will be of such calibre that they will exercise their duties in a proper and independent way.
	I also appreciate that those persons who have been appointed as chair and chief executive of SOCA are of the very highest proven ability. But as ever in this House, we must be concerned to ensure that legislation provides the right framework not only for today but for the future.
	The noble Baroness said at the end of her remarks that although she turns her back on my first group of amendments, she is prepared to accept my Amendment No. 10 and will not expect Clause 10 to stand part. She has there responded to my concerns about performance targets. I thank her for that and, in withdrawing this amendment, I give notice that I do not expect to move any further amendments in my name to this part of the Bill. I anticipate that I will be very sparing in moving further amendments to other parts, although some will need to be moved to give the Government the opportunity to make further progress to clarify discussions that have already been held. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. May I say how much I miss my noble friend Lady Harris, who could have prodded me when it was my time to talk about my amendment?
	This is the most important group of amendments. Clauses 41 to 52 deal with the status of SOCA staff.
	We believe that people exercising police powers should hold the office of constable, with its concomitant duties and independence, and that those exercising customs powers should hold public office and be subject to the duties of an officer of Revenue and Customs. We believe that those exercising immigration powers should be subject to the same duties as an immigration officer. We believe that civilian employees would find it difficult to exercise the degree of independence expected of a police officer and would be more likely to obey illegal orders. Granting powers without the concomitant responsibilities does not provide adequate safeguards against the disproportionate or arbitrary exercise of those powers. It carries the risk that unlawful interferences with fundamental rights will occur and will go unchecked.
	We are also concerned in relation to several other amendments. We support Amendment No. 14. It is important to ensure that police powers can be extended to police members of SOCA.
	Amendments Nos. 46 to 50 are consequential amendments. We believe that only a police member of SOCA should exercise police powers in SOCA investigations. It is precisely because SOCA's remit is national that we believe that this clause must be retained in an amended form to allow police members of SOCA to exercise police powers in all parts of the United Kingdom. Subsection (6) ensures that police members of SOCA are subject to the duties of a constable whenever they exercise police powers, which is an essential safeguard for fundamental rights and the rule of law.
	Clause 51 stand part is also grouped with this amendment. For all the reasons that I have so far given and the strong opposition of the Police Federation, we oppose that the clause stand part. In a recent policy statement, the Government's stated:
	"The Government does not, however, propose to diminish the legal status of the office of constable. To do so would risk undermining the operational discretion and versatility, the personal accountability of constables for their actions, on which the service depends".
	If that would be the effect for the police service generally, the same effect would pertain for SOCA
	It is illogical to suspend the office of constable when a police officer joins SOCA only to hand back the very same powers under the mandate of the director general. Despite the Government's claim to the contrary SOCA is primarily a crime agency and should be operated by the police. The pursuance of criminals requires both police training and experience as well as an understanding of the exercise of police powers. These are the most important aspects of the amendments in this particular group.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 91, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dholakia. My amendment is not quite as all-encompassing as that moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, but I seek that in,
	"any proceedings in a Crown Court, a court-martial, the High Court or the High Court of the Justiciary",
	to permit the use of intercepted communications which are,
	"relevant to the proof of . . . any threat of domestic or international terrorism, . . . sabotage, or actual or potential attack . . . of a foreign power".
	Also, in cases of,
	"murder, conspiracy to murder, attempted murder or manslaughter",
	and any case involving the,
	"import or export of controlled drugs".
	In my experience, it is in those areas that surveillance evidence is obtained.
	It is very much in the public interest that people who are guilty of serious crime should be convicted. It is entirely illogical not to use evidence which is primary evidence to that end. For example, telephone intercept evidence cannot be used unless it has been obtained in a foreign jurisdiction. On the other hand, if a person making a telephone call tapes it himself, then that tape recording can be used in evidence in a criminal trial. If a bug is planted in his house, anything that is said is admissible in a criminal trial, including his end of a telephone conversation. So why are the Government reluctant to introduce intercept evidence in the ordinary criminal trial?
	One understands the sensitivity of the security or other services about disclosure of how such information may be obtained. It is necessary not to expose the identity of an informant or to disclose the technology by which that evidence has come into the hands of the prosecuting authorities. But at the moment there are three important safeguards.
	First, the identity of a party to a conversation can, with modern technology, be established to the requisite level of proof by acoustic analysis and voice prints, so it is not necessary to have an informant state who was speaking in a particular conversation. Secondly, the means of obtaining that evidence need not be disclosed if it is contrary to the public interest or national security. Frequently, in drugs trials evidence obtained by surveillance from observation posts is put before the court, but the location of the observation post and the particular way in which the evidence was obtained is not disclosed.
	However, the third safeguard is that the prosecution need not use that evidence at all if it is in danger of disclosing the means by which it was obtained. If that is the case, then the prosecution is in no worse a position than when no such telephone intercept evidence can be used in any circumstances—which is the current situation.
	The position in America is very interesting. There, surveillance evidence and telephone intercepts have been used for years. Prosecutions based on national security surveillance go forward without difficulty. The security services in the United States are able, under special legislation, to make available to the court ex parte and in camera the justification for the surveillance so that the defendant obtains neither the justification nor a disclosure of the sources and technologies from which that evidence has been obtained.
	As recently as 2004, after 9/11 in the case of The United States v Hammoud, the prosecution was upheld for providing to Hezbollah, a foreign terrorist organisation, material support which had been obtained through electronic surveillance by the United States and Canadian authorities. It was found in this very recent case not to be necessary to produce classified information to permit cross-examination of the government expert under the Classified Information Procedures Act—that is, Chapter 18 of the United States Code.
	I shall not weary the Committee with all the details but, when one looks at that code and at the procedures employed, it is interesting to note that one procedure that can be adopted is that, on application by the Attorney General in the United States, the court may order the substitution for such classified information of a statement admitting relevant facts that the classified information would prove or, alternatively, the substitution for such classified information of a summary of that classified information without revealing sources or techniques or anything of that nature. The court will grant the motion if it finds that the statement or the summary will provide the defendant with substantially the same ability to make his defence as would the disclosure of the classified information itself.
	Those hearings are held in camera—that is, with the public and press excluded—and may be ex parte—that is, without the defendant being represented. The United States government prosecution may submit to the court an affidavit of the Attorney General certifying that disclosure of the classified information would cause identifiable damage to the national security of the United States, explaining the basis of that opinion, and the court will examine that affidavit in camera and ex parte.
	So, the United States, where terrorism has struck deeply and where there is a great fear of the kind of things that may be motivating the security services in this country, has techniques with which the court can permit evidence obtained through telephone intercepts and so on to go before the court. As I said earlier, it is in the public interest that people who are guilty of an offence should be found guilty, and it is not in the public interest that, through some illogical rule, guilty people should get away with it. For those reasons, I support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The new clause inserted by Amendment No. 74 provides that hearings to vary a sentence following an agreement to co-operate can be held in camera or without publicity where the court considers it necessary to protect any person from harm and it is in the interests of justice. Occasionally, knowledge that a specific defendant's sentence is being reviewed would point to his co-operation with the authorities and put him at risk. The amendment makes it clear that the courts have a power to limit those who know about the hearing. We thank the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice for highlighting that issue for us. The remaining amendments in the group are technical rather than substantive in their nature. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I recognise that the safety of court staff, such as barristers and solicitors, may be threatened by their involvement in the prosecution of a case. They are already included among those eligible for protection. Paragraphs 8 to 12 of Schedule 5 cover prosecutors and their staff. I therefore consider that any further addition to Schedule 5 is unnecessary. In the light of that explanation, I invite the noble Duke to withdraw the amendment.
	Defence lawyers and their staff do not face the same risks as the prosecution in bringing a case to trial, although we are aware of a small number of cases where a defence lawyer has been threatened by a disgruntled client because of the impending failure of his trial. Where there is a serious threat to his safety, a defence lawyer should be eligible for some form of protection outside these provisions.
	May I say a word or two to clarify the previous group of amendments? The only time when we would be unable to consult and give 21 days' notice is if the person disappeared. Of course, we will make every effort to find them to ensure that they have the appropriate safeguards. I share the noble Duke's concern about the importance of effective communication between the protection provider and the protected person and of ensuring that the guidance accompanying the legislation makes clear that the 21 days' notice should be maintained. I thought that it was important to clarify that in case someone asked, "What if they disappear?"

Lord Dholakia: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 93 to 100, 102 and 107. Although we do not object in principle to the simplification of the criteria for arrest, we are concerned that the clause grants too much discretion to individual officers and will lead to many unnecessary arrests.
	We are concerned that the language of being "about to" commit an offence has been obtained in paragraphs (a) and (c) of new Section 24(1). Preventive detention otherwise than for the purpose of initiating a criminal prosecution is not permitted by Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The police and others have powers under Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 to use reasonable force in the prevention of crime. In addition, in many cases a person about to commit an offence will be committing the offence of criminal attempt under Section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and therefore can be arrested under paragraphs (b) or (d) of new Section 24(1).
	We are concerned about a general power of arrest under paragraphs (e) and (f) of new Section 24(5). Those conditions are drafted very broadly; it will be very easy for an officer to justify an arrest under one or both of them. Since officers must often make rapid decisions about whether to arrest, it will be natural, particularly for the relatively inexperienced, to err on the side of caution. That will lead to further overcrowding of custody suites and an increased use of police time and resources in dealing with people arrested for minor offences.
	In addition, we are concerned that there is considerable scope for abuse of those subsections, and that they may be applied arbitrarily or in a discriminatory fashion against certain sections of the community. Article 5 of the convention does not permit arbitrary procedures for arrest.
	Where none of paragraphs (a) to (d) of new Section 24(5) applies, we believe that arrest and detention is not justified for minor offences, since the incentive for a suspect to abscond is small and the ultimate sanction that a court can impose is not severe. A person should spend time in police custody in relation to an offence for which he would not be imprisoned on conviction only where it was absolutely necessary. Paragraphs (e) and (f) should apply only to offences that are currently arrestable and should certainly not apply to offences that are not punishable by imprisonment.
	I shall now speak to Amendments Nos. 93, 94, 96, 98 and 99. Since preventive detention otherwise than for the purpose of initiating a criminal prosecution is not permitted under Article 5 of the European convention, arrest should not be available where someone is "about to" commit an offence but their actions do not constitute a criminal attempt or another offence. Where their actions constitute a criminal attempt or another offence, arrest would be available under paragraphs (b) and (d) of Clause 106(1). In other circumstances, the police and others have power to use reasonable force for the prevention of crime under Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967.
	We believe that paragraphs (c) and (f) are very broadly drafted and that arrest could be justified under any one of them in most cases. In the case of relatively minor non-violent offences, arrest without warrant is not appropriate unless one of paragraphs (a) to (d) applies. We therefore propose to exclude non-violent offences carrying a maximum sentence of less than two years' imprisonment from the operation of paragraph (e) and (f). I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 103:
	Page 179, line 41, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"London County Council (General Powers) Act 1894 (c. ccxii)
	In section 7 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1894 (arrest for breach of byelaws), omit "and any person called to the assistance of such constable or person authorised".
	:TITLE3:London County Council (General Powers) Act 1900 (c. cclxviii)
	In section 27 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1900 (arrest for breach of byelaws), omit "and any person called to the assistance of such constable or officer".
	:TITLE3:Licensing Act 1902 (c. 28)
	(1) The Licensing Act 1902 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 1 (apprehension of persons found drunk), omit "apprehended and".
	(3) In section 2 (being drunk in charge of a child), in subsection (1), omit "may be apprehended, and"."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 104 to 106:
	Page 180, line 11, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"Criminal Justice Act 1967 (c. 80)
	In section 91 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (drunkenness in a public place), in subsection (1), omit "may be arrested without warrant by any person and".
	:TITLE3:Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Greater London Parks and Open Spaces) Act 1967 (c. xxix)
	In Article 19 (power of detention) of the Order set out in the Schedule to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Greater London Parks and Open Spaces) Act 1967, omit "and any person called to the assistance of such constable or officer"."
	Page 182, line 13, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"Transport and Works Act 1992 (c. 42)
	In section 30 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (powers of arrest and entry), omit subsections (1) and (3)."
	Page 183, line 33, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "London County Council(General Powers) Act 1900(c. cclxviii) Section 27 (arrest for breach of byelaws). 
			 Ministry of Housing and LocalGovernment ProvisionalOrder Confirmation (GreaterLondon Parks and OpenSpaces) Act 1967 (c. xxix) Article 19 (power of detention) of the Order set out in the Schedule." 
		
	
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: These two amendments are designed to assist with the identification of the British victims of the tsunami that struck South East Asia on Boxing Day. Currently, somewhat tragically, there are 169 confirmed or feared British victims of the tsunami. Officers from the Metropolitan Police are leading the painstaking task of ensuring that bodies are correctly identified before they are released to their families for burial. The sooner that process can be completed, the sooner the family and friends of the deceased can properly mourn the loss of their loved ones and bring closure to this tragic event.
	These amendments make a simple change to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to enable DNA samples and fingerprints to be checked against the national DNA and fingerprint databases for the purpose of the identification of a deceased person. As such, the change will apply to future natural disasters. It is not confined to the identification of the tsunami victims. The amendment to PACE will come into force on Royal Assent so that the checks can be undertaken speedily. I know that the whole House would wish relief to be given to those families in distress as quickly as possible and will join me in welcoming the amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 113, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 114 [Impressions of footwear]:
	[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
	Clause 114 agreed to.
	Clause 115 agreed to.
	On Question, Whether Clause 116 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: This is a very important matter. The noble Baronesses, Lady Harris and Lady Anelay, have set out the case in such detail that I need not say much. But it surely cannot be right to civilianise this element of police work. It is all right to civilianise clerical workers, telephonists, mechanics, drivers and so forth because they are not an inherent part of police work itself. However, the custody officer is very much part of police work.
	It is essential that criminals should recognise that they are being held in police custody, not in the custody of some civilian. They are being held because they are suspected of having committed a criminal offence. They would have been arrested by a police officer and would have been taken to a police station. At that point they should be put in a police cell and looked after by a policeman. What will criminals think if, after being arrested and charged in the police station, they are handed over to some civilian who is to look after them from then on? That simply cannot be right. It sends out the wrong message not only to the police, but also to civilians and criminals.
	I hope that the Government will listen to what has been said and that they have been in close contact with the Police Federation. The federation represents those who do the job on the ground. It is not done by Ministers and staff in the Home Office. Policemen do the job on the ground and in this instance they have the expertise, experience and knowledge and thus should be listened to.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has said, the Bill will have its Report stage tomorrow. We are in a difficult situation and I believe that if it were being given proper consideration in Committee and on Report, we—not I, as one who is simply Independent Labour these days—in the form of the main opposition parties would press this Question to a vote. They probably do not want to do that but, given the assistance the Government have been given today by all sides of this House to get the Bill through, they ought to be good enough to hold conversations with the Secretary of State and persuade him to make this concession. Tomorrow—or perhaps even tonight; it would be marvellous if she could do so—I hope that the Minister will be able to say that, having considered all aspects of the issue and having listened to the concerns of the Police Federation and the debate in this House, the Government have decided that the proposition that the clauses should not stand part should be agreed and that they will no longer proceed with this part of the Bill. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, may I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, in moving this amendment I will also speak to Amendment No. 4 which deals in different way with some of the loose ends around the delegations that are allowed by Clause 14.
	Amendment No. 3 deals with the role of the commissioners once they have delegated their functions. We have no basic problem with the fact that the commissioners have to delegate their functions, but we do believe that having delegated those functions, they need to control what happens after they have delegated. That is what Amendment No. 3 is about. When the commissioners delegate under Clause 14(1)(b) to a committee, that committee can include commissioners and officers, but it can also include outsiders. It is the latter category that potentially causes the problem.
	If there are outsiders on a committee to which functions are delegated and those outsiders are in the majority, we must ensure that the commissioners can control what happens in that committee. If the commissioners are delegated to a person rather than a committee under Clause 14(1)(c), other provisions kick in by virtue of subsection (4). First, the commissioners have to monitor the exercise of the delegated function and, secondly, the delegate has to comply with the directions of the commissioners. Therefore, Amendment No. 3 provides a mirror of subsection (4) and repeats these two provisions for committees controlled by non-HMRC people.
	This concern is not entirely fanciful because it is clear that committees can be comprised wholly or mainly of outsiders. In Grand Committee we talked about an audit committee that would be comprised wholly of outsiders and I do not suggest for a moment that audit committees would be a problem. However, the Act does allow virtually all the functions apart from very limited restrictions that apply to old Inland Revenue functions which are laid out in the clause. Therefore, all of the existing Customs and Excise functions and the vast majority of the old Inland Revenue functions can be delegated to a committee and that committee can be wholly or mainly comprised of non-HMRC people. That is what concerns us.
	The theme of confidentiality also drives Amendment No.4. We were pleased that the Government amended the Bill in another place to ensure that there was a declaration of confidentiality for commissioners and their staff, but because the way in which both the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise now work has changed over time and more contractors are involved in the operations, there is a concern about how those involved in the private sector organisations are aware of the confidentiality requirement. I accept that the duty of confidentiality applies to people who deal with taxpayer information: the issue is how do we make sure that they are aware of their obligations?
	Amendment No. 4 would ensure that people are aware of their obligations and it is designed in a way that does not force HMRC into a straitjacket. It can either use the declaration route or something similar. It would give the commissioners discretion. When we debated this matter at the Grand Committee, the noble and learned Lord said that he would consider further what might be done about that category of person, so I am hoping that the noble and learned Lord will be able to respond positively to the thought behind the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I shall not take the advantage, because the noble and learned Lord has, yet again—not wilfully—totally misinterpreted and misunderstood the principle behind this matter and the comments of the committee. I shall say no more.

Lord Goldsmith: I was not pressing the noble Lord to intervene if he had not wished to. I emphasise that I have listened carefully to noble Lords' concerns, as I have throughout the passage of the Bill. We have gone a long way to meet the concerns that have been expressed in relation to confidentiality in a number of ways.
	I wish to make a final and important point of substance. We do not differ in principle about the importance of imposing safeguards by law as to the way that information may be used. The difference between us, which I have some difficulty in understanding, is that we say on the on the face of the Bill that the Data Protection Act applies. That carries with it important statutory obligations. It carries with it the obligation that the principle of fairness shall apply in the use of information under the Data Protection Act. It carries with it the obligation to comply with the obligations of necessity. We do not say on the on the face of the Bill that the Human Rights Act applies, because, of course, it does. That is common ground between us. Actually, in a sense, we do say in the Bill that the Act applies, because I have signed a certificate saying that the Act, in my opinion, is compatible.
	We do not have any disagreement that the Human Rights Act imports a requirement by law that the type of sensitive and confidential information with which the noble Lord is concerned may be an intrusion on privacy only if it is justified in accordance with Article 8(2). That means that it must be proportionate and for one of the limited purposes.
	My real point is that, given that the law requires the Data Protection Act principles of necessity and fairness and the Human Rights Act principle of proportionality for limited purposes, and given that we have gone even further on the face of the Bill with public interest disclosure, are we not doing enough to say on the face of the Bill how information may be used? Perhaps I may respectfully suggest that the noble Lord has more than fulfilled the task that he set himself of drawing to the attention of this House the observations of the Joint Human Rights Committee.
	We believe that we are achieving what is needed in order to safeguard taxpayer confidentiality in the use of the information. We believe that that is done in the way that the Bill presently provides and that there are—this is why I drew attention to it—difficulties with the noble Lord's amendment. I entirely take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, sought to deal with other difficulties in the way that he put the amendment forward, but it still does not meet the objective.
	Therefore, in what I hope is a spirit of acceptance of the noble Lord's intentions, reassurance to the noble Lord about what we have been seeking to do and, in particular, reassurance that we agree with him, as I have agreed with all noble Lords from the very start, about the importance of the use of this information by HMRC, I hope that he will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I believe that government Amendments No. 6, 7, 9 to 13 and 20 achieve what the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, seek. They also improve on their amendments in a number of ways. For those reasons I shall resist Amendments Nos. 8 and 14 to 19.
	The group of amendments, Amendments Nos. 8 and 14 to 19, put forward by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness propose to freeze the draft regulations in their first exposed form and to write them into the Bill as the first description of public interest disclosures for HMRC.
	Throughout the passage of the Bill, both here and in the other place, there has been a great deal of debate on the safeguards surrounding public interest disclosures in terms of how they are made, in what circumstances and under which controls.
	Nothing in Clause 20 will override the requirements of the ECHR. There is also a need to strike the right balance between the effective operation of public interest disclosure provisions for HMRC with the ability for full and proper parliamentary scrutiny of that process. I recognise the clear preference of noble Lords for a solution that places what would have been contained in the initial set of regulations in the Bill and I advise noble Lords that I am now prepared to move a considerable way towards accommodating that clear wish.
	The most important question that I have faced is whether placing the provisions in the Bill would compromise operational imperatives. I am satisfied that it would not. I have also taken on board the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that there should be greater transparency by including the regulations in the Bill—a point pressed by the noble Earl both, if I may put it this way, as litigant in person and, earlier, when he had counsel in Grand Committee.
	However, the noble Earl's amendments tabled on Report threw up some technical problems. In some cases, they would freeze in the Bill the text of the regulations as they were at a draft stage. So I have tabled a similar amendment faithful to the principle of what the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, want to achieve, but which addresses the technical points and makes the legislation workable.
	Perhaps I may put on record a point of clarification regarding terminology used in the text of Amendment No. 13:
	"an international or other agreement of the United Kingdom or Her Majesty's Government",
	covers both formal international treaties and memoranda of understanding entered into by or on behalf of Her Majesty's Commissioners for Revenue and Customs with public authorities abroad for the purposes of securing the due administration of their respective customs laws.
	Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, 9 to 13 and 20 improve on the amendments of the noble Earl and noble Baroness, in that they provide for the regulations to be placed in the Bill while also providing for the most appropriate regulation-making power. So the text of the public interest disclosure regulations will be put on the face of the Bill; a regulation-making power will be introduced which does not confer a Henry VIII power on the Treasury. We debated that last time. Any future regulations will be tightly drawn in terms of the description of public interest being narrowed to specific circumstances—crime, national security, health and safety. In that way, I believe that we have made it all the clearer that there is no case for the super-affirmative procedure.
	In the circumstances, I invite agreement with the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform that the normal affirmative procedure is the right way to proceed here. The government amendments mean that we can dispense with the accelerated affirmative procedure for the first set of regulations. That conforms with the noble Earl's amendment on Report. We have corrected the issue of the offence of wrongful disclosure by making that apply where there is onward disclosure without the commissioner's consent.
	I hope that that sufficiently meets the concerns raised. I am grateful for our discussions on the matter. Now that I have tabled these amendments and said what I have on the record, I hope that we can reach a consensus on the government amendments without need for other amendments to be pressed.

Lord Dholakia: The amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 124, 136 and 141 to 145. It concerns a matter on which we have received strong representation from the Police Federation.
	Since the introduction of community support officers there has been a worrying, yet entirely predictable, creep in their powers. The additional powers in the Bill will be the third extension of those given to CSOs since their introduction in July 2002. All these extensions have taken place in the absence of any empirical evidence as to the utility of the exercise of their existing powers or any evaluation of the effectiveness or efficiency of the service they are delivering.
	We were in support of the appointment of community support officers when it was first discussed but we oppose the additional powers which would be conferred on CSOs by Clause 118. This view is derivedfrom focus group research conducted by the Police Federation into the experiences of police officers working with CSOs. The Government have no empirical evidence of the utility of the powers the CSOs already have. The Home Office evaluation of the use of powers to detain signally failed to measure utility despite being directed by the terms of reference to do so.
	We are very concerned about the power creep that is happening, with more and more powers for CSOs being tagged on to any convenient piece of legislation. While the Police Federation accepted that CSOs should be given the power to search following detention, the clause goes far further, effectively giving them the power to stop and search for alcohol and tobacco and, by extension, for drugs. CSOs should not get involved in potentially highly confrontational situations by warning people who may well carry weapons to protect themselves, their drugs or the money they are carrying. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her correct outline of the Government's position. The noble Baroness and other noble Lords will know that I have written in response to a proper concern expressed by the Ramblers' Association about the Government's intention. I reassure my noble friend that although this matter has been dealt with late in tonight's deliberations, that is not because of any lack of care.
	It may assist my noble friend and other Members of the Committee if I say, briefly, that Clauses 125 to 128 should be seen in their proper context. They respond to the Armstrong report of July 2003, following Aaron Barschak's intrusion at Windsor Castle on 21 June 2003. That report recommended that an offence of criminal trespass be created. That was supported by the Security Commission inquiry report of May 2004, which was conducted following revelations of Ryan Parry's activities at Buckingham Palace late in 2003. I am sure that the Committee remembers the incursions into our Palace of Westminster last year.
	That is the background against which the provisions should be seen. I am aware that concern has been expressed that the powers are too wide-ranging and could be used to designate large areas of Crown land to which the public has access. I take this opportunity to reassure the Committee, including my noble friend, that that is categorically not our intention. The offence created under Clause 125 will be limited to a small number of sites which will be designated by order under subsection (2). In making designations under the powers, the Secretary of State will be mindful of the need to provide a proportionate response to the potential for intrusion at a small number of sensitive sites, such as Buckingham Palace, Parliament and elsewhere.
	It is very unlikely that members of the public will be denied access to any land which they currently enjoy. I have responded to my noble friend Lord Judd, who raised the issue in terms of trespass on behalf of the Ramblers' Association. I wrote to him on 14 March and am happy to place a copy of that letter in the Library. I had understood that the Ramblers' Association had been provided with the information in the letter.
	I commend my noble friend Lord Haworth if this is his first incursion into our deliberations on a Bill. I hope that it has not put him off, and we will welcome him even more warmly on all other occasions.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I absolutely agree with the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Dholakia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about the importance of being able to protest. These provisions specifically allow that still to take place. The commissioner must allow demonstrations. This is simply an opportunity to impose conditions.
	We are not preventing demonstrations; we are not preventing peaceful process. All that is still possible. We are not inhibiting the public's ability freely to express their views. We all enjoy the benefit of hearing them and hearing them very clearly. We have put some reasonable, proportionate limits on the exercise of that quite proper right. I hope that nothing that we put in this Bill will in any way inhibit proper demonstrations so that the voice of the people of this country can be heard. I am glad that the young noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, who was traipsing the streets in this regard, has found his proper place on the Benches of the House.

Lord Harris of Haringey: In retrospect, moving this as an amendment after Clause 134 does not look entirely logical. However, since the purpose of Amendments Nos. 202 and 203 is simply to raise the issue in the hope of getting some assurances that further work will be done on the matter by the Government, I am not too worried about their putative placing in the legislation.
	Amendment No. 202 would prohibit the sale, manufacture and importation of imitation firearms and Amendment No. 203 would do the same for airguns. The purpose of the amendments is that although the Government have substantially restricted people carrying imitation weapons and the sale of airguns, I do not believe that in either case enough has been done.
	On imitation weapons, apart from the fact that many of them can be converted into real and very dangerous weapons, there is the real problem that people carrying an imitation firearm, if it looks like a real firearm, will require the deployment of armed police. There may then be an incident in which someone is shot and it then turns out the gun was a toy or an imitation weapon. The consequences are very serious in every way. That clearly is unfortunate.
	If you encourage that, it adds to a situation in which you are glorifying weapons. So I would very much like to see us move on that point, particularly as crimes involving imitation guns are increasing and rose by 18 per cent in the past year. Indeed, I understand that if you were to extract offences involving imitation firearms from the figures for gun crime, you would find that gun crime in this country had gone down. So I certainly believe that we should be making progress on that issue.
	On airguns, in my speech at Second Reading I referred to the tragic case of Andrew Morton. He was a two year-old child from Easterhouse in Glasgow, who was shot in the head with an airgun pellet and subsequently died. In case people feel that that was an isolated incident, a few days before the South Wales Echo reported a situation in which a sniper targeted four bus passengers, including two children, waiting at a bus stop in Pentrebane. When the police arrived they were seen to confiscate an air rifle but witnesses were surprised that no one was arrested.
	The day before the Sunderland Echo reported a case in which a six year-old boy almost blinded a 12 year-old girl with a shot from a ball-bearing gun. On the same day the Sheffield Today reported an incident in which a pensioner was shot in the head by a pellet fired from a ball-bearing gun as she walked home from a Sheffield bus stop.
	The reality is that whatever changes have already been made, too many of these weapons are available. They are too readily available and my belief is that the Government should take steps to make it much more difficult to buy, obtain and to use them. I beg to move.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 203 not moved.]
	Clause 135 [The designated area]:
	[Amendments Nos. 204 and 205 not moved.]
	Clause 135 agreed to.
	Clauses 136 and 137 agreed to.
	Clause 138 [Anti-social behaviour orders etc: reporting restrictions]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 138 shall stand part of the Bill?

The Earl of Listowel: I strongly support my noble friend Lady Stern. I shall endeavour to be brief, but my first concern is that there was no debate on the clause in the other place. Although the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised a question about that at Second Reading, the Minister made neither specific response to that question nor any reference to the issue during the Second Reading debate. We will now have curtailed scrutiny of the Bill.
	It is not particularly a party political matter; there is no great controversy among the parties about it. However, as we heard, those who work with children are very concerned. Yet, there will be only this evening's discussion and a brief discussion tomorrow, with no chance for correspondence with the Minister, no opportunity to reflect and no chance to consult the relevant organisations. That is my first concern.
	Secondly, today the Select Committee on Home Affairs in the other place reported on anti-social behaviour. It questioned Hazel Blears, the Minister of State. The report states:
	"We asked [her] whether the practice of naming and shaming could be justified in light of concerns of child safety. She told us that publicity was crucial for community confidence, and commented that 'if there are good reasons for not having publicity then the courts always have the power to impose reporting restrictions'. She also confirmed that there was no current research looking at the effects of publicity on those involved".
	I repeat:
	"She also confirmed that there was no current research looking at the effects of publicity on those involved".
	During the passage of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill two or three years ago, I pressed the Government repeatedly for research into the impact of that controversial measure on those children and families. To the best of my knowledge there has been no such research carried out by the Government. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend Lord Chan whether he would give a medicine to a child without knowing what the side effects would be on a vulnerable child. That is my second concern.
	Thirdly, today the Education and Skills Committee of the other place published a report on Every Child Matters. As the report states:
	"Every Child Matters is a comprehensive programme of reform for children's services".
	It continues:
	"Every Child Matters, although based in the Department for Education and Skills, requires co-ordination and joined-up working with other Government departments . . . In particular, the Youth Justice system and the immigration system currently operate in ways which can be seen to undermine the aims of Every Child Matters. These tensions need to be tackled at Ministerial level if the Government is to convince us that every child really does matter equally".
	The noble Baroness earlier referred to the problem of professionals working in silos. Perhaps she will explain the Government's programme to encourage co-operative working between agencies—education, health and criminal justice, for example. But how can those agencies have confidence to work as a team? To many people involved in health and social services, publishing the names of such vulnerable children—without even bothering to investigate the implications that such publication has for those children and families—is highly irresponsible and possibly highly detrimental to the welfare of those children.
	I quote further from the Select Committee's report on anti-social behaviour, which states:
	"However, we conclude that the Government's strategy is being undermined by different philosophies, methods and tactics amongst key players. In particular, we were disappointed to hear that some social services departments, local educational authorities, Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services, Youth Services and children's non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are often not fully committed to local [anti-social behaviour] strategies. The failure to attend meetings of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships is just one symptom of this. Yet many perpetrators of ASB, both young and adult, are also the very people with complex support needs and therefore with whom these organisations are already, or should be, working".
	That is highly regrettable.
	A psychiatrist with whom I spoke two weeks ago was treating a girl who, while undergoing treatment, had to move her home because her identity had been publicised widely in the neighbourhood. How can health professionals work closely with the criminal justice system if they have difficulty with whether the criminal justice system puts the interests of the child as a high priority?
	Rod Morgan, head of the Youth Justice Board, is responsible for the work of youth offending teams and the state of children in prisons. I have heard him recently expressing deep concern about the naming and shaming of children. If the argument for having publicity is to empower local communities so that they know something is being done, frankly, complainants should be told that something is being done as regards the incidents about which they have concerns.
	We have already heard today about the increased number of community officers working on the beat. They know the kids in their communities about whom action needs to be taken. They can be informed without necessarily releasing names and photographs to the press. It is then extremely difficult to work positively with either the children, their families or their carers.
	In conclusion, while I apologise for taking so long, it deeply concerns me that this important area will not receive the scrutiny it certainly deserves. First, as I said earlier, there has been only a brief debate on it, followed by a short discussion in this House. Secondly, there has been no research into the consequences of publishing such information about vulnerable young people and families, whatever they may have done, as the noble Baroness was good enough to recognise earlier, and I thank her for that. Thirdly, surely the close co-operation and work of agencies will be undermined if their values seem to be in such conflict with one another.
	I beg the Minister to think again about this clause and to consider bringing it back on another occasion when we have had time to reflect on a matter which affects some of the most vulnerable children and families in our society.

Lord Dholakia: It is always a delight to support the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: the proposal is contrary to our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It will seriously impair the welfare of children and their opportunities for rehabilitation. That is the point I made in my speech at Second Reading. We are also concerned that it will not deter many children from anti-social acts as many will enjoy the notoriety, while for others their anti-social behaviour is a manifestation of mental health or other difficulties which cannot be solved in this way.
	We are strongly opposed to the proposal in this clause to reverse the presumption of the withholding of the identity of a child accused of breaching an ASBO from the public. The current legislative presumption that a child subject to criminal proceedings should not be identified enshrines the principle set out in Article 40 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It provides that:
	"State parties recognize that the right of every child alleged as, accused of, or recognised as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child's sense of dignity and worth, which reinforces the child's respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child's age and the desirability of promoting the child's reintegration and the child's assuming a constructive role in society".
	Article 40 also states that:
	"State parties shall ensure that children alleged as or accused of having infringed the penal law shall have the guarantee that their privacy will be fully respected at all stages of the proceedings".
	This provision therefore infringes the United Kingdom's obligations under international law. Publication of a conviction for breaching an ASBO can be seen as more prejudicial to a child than the publication of an ordinary conviction since it indicates that they are regarded as a menace to their society. Local media cover ASBO proceedings. We believe that this provision will seriously impair the welfare of children and their opportunities for rehabilitation.
	We have looked seriously at the issues surrounding naming and shaming which we consider to be counterproductive. In some cases, public identification and publicity can glorify bad behaviour and act as a badge of honour. Anecdotal reports from projects show that young people who have had their ASBO publicised have been stigmatised within the community. This impedes community relations and the young person's future job prospects. It can also impact on the whole family, including younger siblings. Equally, for those who do want to make a fresh start, for whom being caught and reprimanded has had an effect, the impact of negative publicity about them can only prolong their problems in engaging with their community more positively. People who may never have even known or met them will know them only as troublemakers.
	Let me quote the words of a parent of a young person on an ASBO:
	"I had to move out of one area to another because of the ASBO conditions. The leaflets stated where we had moved to. This didn't seem fair as the ASBO was given in a different area and we had moved for a fresh start".
	Recent figures from the Youth Justice Board show that breaches of ASBOs are resulting in a rise in those young people being sent to custody. Ten young people who have breached an ASBO are sentenced to custody every week. Children and young people are effectively being set up to fail in meeting the ASBO conditions imposed on them. When they do fail, the system finds them guilty of a criminal offence. Clause 138 then suggests that everyone needs to know about the failure—but to what end?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Members of the Committee will know that how we deal with young people is an area of law in which I take an acute personal interest. It is important to see these provisions in the context of all the others that inure to the benefit of children in terms of their protection. I refer to Sure Start projects, diversion projects and the work done by DCMS, the Department for Education and Skills and the Home Office. I refer also to the holistic approach encouraged by all parties and partners that work with and for children when it comes to drug intervention, substance misuse, parenting orders, local criminal justice boards, national criminal justice boards, crime and disorder reduction partnerships and the Youth Justice Board. All those concentrate on the support, diversion, rehabilitation and reorientation of children who are disadvantaged by living in dysfunctional homes or failing to meet developmental, educational and other milestones. That work is of the utmost importance.
	So, too, is dealing with anti-social and disruptive behaviour which is outwith the norm that the ordinary citizen, the ordinary community, should reasonably be expected to tolerate. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, feels the force of that, as do others, including the charities which have to deal with children in this framework. We are very much in the same place in this respect.
	I want to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about discretion. The important thing is that we have all put a huge amount of effort into trying to make sure that those professionals, including the lay and professional judiciary, who are entrusted with the care and determination of these issues in relation to children have the appropriate level of training, expertise and commitment to this area so that they well understand the balance that has to be struck. We commend the amount of work that has been put in by the Judicial Studies Board in the training that it is to undertake with not only the professional judiciary but the lay magistracy.
	The exercise of the discretion by the court remains. If the court feels that there are proper reasons that publicity should not be given, then such a course of action is at the court's instigation. That duty, which is also a burden, is not being taken away from the judge. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asks how we would monitor that. Each case turns on its facts; the noble Baroness will know from having sat as a magistrate that no two cases are identical. Where the court is entrusted with the exercise of discretion, it will have to say why it came to that view. We would expect all members of the judiciary, whether lay or professional, not to behave precipitously, irrationally or irregularly but to behave properly and give good reasons for the determinations they make. That is a safeguard in relation to how these matters will be dealt with.
	Currently a juvenile can breach an ASBO and that breach cannot be made known to the local community. That is because Sections 39 and 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 provide that a juvenile identity cannot be revealed in criminal proceedings. That would apply to the breach of an ASBO because it is a criminal offence. To allow such a position to continue would undermine the effectiveness of ASBOs and communities are entitled to know that if an ASBO is breached action will be taken. That can only be achieved if reporting of the offence is allowed. It is interesting that under these provisions the making of an ASBO could be publicised but the breach could not be. That would be a curious situation.
	I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, says about wearing these issues like a badge of honour. However, a great deal of concentrated time—which is not often talked about—has been put into behavioural contracts. On many occasions, behavioural contracts are much more effective for the sort of child who is at the very low end of offending behaviour. Also, although those contracts do not get publicity, I can assure noble Lords—I do not have the specific figures, but I am happy to write to the noble Baroness—that there are very many more behavioural contracts than anti-social behaviour orders.
	We must accept—and this is an uncomfortable thing to accept—that there is a small cadre of children to whom these provisions will apply, but the court will have the ability to differentiate between those children who will continue to need the sort of protection that does not allow them to have a badge of honour and those to which these provisions should properly be given voice to.
	The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, rightly raised the issue about what further work should be done in relation to ensuring that these provisions are working well. The noble Earl will be aware that the joint Home Office, ACPO and Youth Justice Board guidance on anti-social behaviour orders and youth justice, which was published on 31 March, contains a reference to the need for all publicity of an anti-social behaviour order issued against a young person to be considered carefully—it should be both necessary and proportionate. Having said that, the Government are convinced that publicity of an ASBO breach is a highly effective tool that should be available to the courts for all ASBO cases, including breaches by under 18 year-olds.
	Regrettably, on many occasions, these children are very well known to residents where they live because the nature of the behaviour that they undertake has made them well known. It is important for there not to be rumour about these children about where they are supposed to be and what they are not supposed to be doing. The rumour and tittle-tattle that can go on in relation to these matters can be just as damaging—if not more so—than knowing precisely what parameters the court has set, to give people certainty. Of course, these issues must be dealt with in a proportionate and balanced way.
	I understand that there is a limited amount of time to respond to noble Lords on this issue tonight. I had the advantage of speaking to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, today at the open meeting that we held in relation to this Bill. I am sorry that many more people did not attend, but I would be very happy to write a more detailed response about what we are doing to support children, how we anticipate the partnership working and what sort of support there will be—there are intensive supervision programmes that can go hand in glove with an anti-social behaviour order. Orders can target not only behaviour but identify the help that children need to overcome some of these difficulties. I would be very happy to write in a more co-ordinated way to noble Lords in relation to this matter. I hope that I will be able to do so before we meet tomorrow, but that noble Lords will forgive me if I cannot quite manage it. I will do my very best. I invite noble Lords not to press this amendment.

The Earl of Listowel: I thank the Minister for her lengthy response at this time of night, and I am sorry to try the patience of the Chamber a little further, but could the Minister explain how sensible decisions can be made about publication of the information if one has done no research into the impact over several years of the publication and identification of these children on the children and their families? Does the Minister recognise that there is a definite lacuna here, if one is going to make sensible policy in this area in future?
	I look forward to the Minister's response to that point, or perhaps she would like to put a note about that in her letter of response for tomorrow.

Baroness Stern: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. I do not for one minute doubt her commitment. I remind her that the document entitled, Anti-Social Behaviour Orders—Use Of Publicity issued on 31 March states:
	"1. Statement of principles . . . publicity should be expected in most cases".
	The words,
	"publicity should be expected in most cases",
	are in bold type in case anyone had any doubts. I think that I heard the noble Baroness say that that document would be revised after the Bill became law. I hope that I heard her say that and I shall certainly expect to see that in Hansard tomorrow.
	I am very grateful to those who have spoken on this matter. Initially I felt very guilty at keeping noble Lords here so late. But having heard what everyone had to say I feel that it was very worthwhile. It will give a lot of encouragement to all those organisations out there which feel very, very deeply about how wrong this is. I must say that I agree with them. I think that we are doing something here which is extremely wrong. However, in view of the circumstances I withdraw my opposition.

Clause 138 agreed to.
	Clause 139 [Contracting out of local authority functions relating to anti-social behaviour orders]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 139 shall stand part of the Bill?

Clause 139 agreed to.
	Clauses 140 and 141 agreed to.
	Schedule 11 agreed to.
	Clauses 147 and 148 agreed to.
	Clause 149 [Powers to seize etc. vehicles driven without licence or insurance]:
	[Amendments Nos. 206 and 207 not moved.]

The Duke of Montrose: In spite of the Minister's words, I have a few other questions on the application to the private security industry in Scotland. With the leave of the Committee, I would like to address Amendments Nos. 225 to 229 at the same time as Amendment No. 218, because I am told that there is a public interest element in them.
	Amendment No. 218 extends Section 21 of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 to include precognition agents, because Schedule 15 to the Bill amends the 2001 Act and extends the provisions to Scotland. This Schedule extends the regulatory function of the security industry to include inter alia precognition agents. The Law Society of Scotland welcomes this aspect of the Bill, as it will ensure that a range of consumer protection mechanisms will be available for those witnesses who are interviewed by precognition agents.
	Precognition agents can in the course of their employment come into contact with child and vulnerable witnesses. The society therefore believes that precognition agents should be subject to enhanced disclosure checks when applying for a licence with the Security Industry Authority. This would also ensure conformity with other provisions contained in the legislation directed at enhancing child protection. The amendment seeks to achieve this. Amendment No. 226 is consequential.
	Amendment No. 225 provides that trainee solicitors in Scotland will be exempt from the provisions of paragraph (4) of Schedule 2 to the Private Security Industry Act 2001. The Bill does not define "solicitor" and, accordingly, the definition given in the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 would apply—namely, that a person enrolled with the Law Society of Scotland would be the only one qualified.
	As currently drafted, only advocates and solicitors in Scotland would be exempt from the provisions of paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Private Security Industry Act 2001. First-year trainee solicitors and some second-year trainees who have not be admitted by the Law Society of Scotland would not, therefore, be able to conduct the investigations outlined in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2, without being required to register with the Security Industry Authority. Part of the training currently given to trainee solicitors may involve work in this area.
	An important part of the training involves how to precognosce witnesses and prepare cases for court. This training is given by solicitors who are enrolled with the society and who supervise the trainees concerned. The society suggests that the exemption given to solicitors and advocates should be extended to trainee solicitors. This will ensure that trainees receive comprehensive training. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 233 to 236:
	Page 239, line 20, at end insert—
	
		
			   
			 "Unlawful Drilling Act 1819(60 Geo. 3 & 1 Geo. 4c. 1) In section 2, the words ", or for any other person acting in their aid or assistance,". 
			 Vagrancy Act 1824 (c. 83) Section 6. 
			 Railway Regulation Act 1842(c. 55) Section 17. 
			 Companies Clauses Consolidation Act 1845(c. 16) In section 156, the words ", and all persons called by him to his assistance,". 
			 Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845(c. 20) Sections 104 and 154. 
			 Licensing Act 1872 (c. 94) In section 12, the words "may be apprehended and"." 
		
	
	Page 239, line 21, at end insert—
	
		
			   
			 "London County Council(General Powers) Act 1894 (c. ccxii) In section 7, the words "and any person called to the assistance of such constable or person authorised". 
			 London County Council(General Powers) Act 1900 (c. cclxviii) In section 27, the words "and any person called to the assistance of such constable or officer". 
			 Licensing Act 1902 (c. 28) In section 1, the words"apprehended and". In section 2(1), the words "may be apprehended, and"." 
		
	
	Page 240, line 17, at end insert—
	
		
			   
			 "Criminal Justice Act 1967(c. 80) In section 91(1), the words "may be arrested without warrant by any person and"." 
		
	
	Page 240, line 19, at end insert—
	
		
			   
			 "Ministry of Housing and LocalGovernment Provisional Order Confirmation (Greater London Parks and Open Spaces) Act 1967 (c. xxix) In Article 19 of the Order set out in the Schedule, the words "and any person called to the assistance of such constable or officer"." 
		
	
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation delivered at high speed at a late hour. I do not propose to detain the House at any great length, for two reasons: first because the matter has been debated in the Commons. As has been pointed out in earlier proceedings, perhaps the hallmark of this Government has been how they have programmed primary legislation, to the extent that frequently it arrives in this House having been barely debated.
	That is not true about secondary legislation. The debates which took place in the other place about this order covered most of the ground, although the noble Baroness seems to have thought up one or two points which were not in the brief for the Minister in the other place.
	Secondly, because, as the noble Baroness pointed out, this is now something of an annual event and covers much the same ground as a similar order a year ago, one is bound to ask: how many more times do the Government expect this to be repeated? In that context, have the Government drawn any initial conclusions from the experience of the past year? One would have thought that after a year, they would have had some idea as to what extent the proposals have been effective in getting people into jobs on a long-term basis—which, of course, we on this side of the House want as much as the Government.
	I am somewhat puzzled by the noble Baroness's remark about the random way in which candidates are to be selected. I think that she said that that means that the performance of the scheme will be unaffected by the region or individual. I should have thought that it will depend significantly on the selection between regions, even if it is made randomly within them. On human rights, I am a little concerned whether selecting people in a random way when they may subsequently be made subject to sanctions can be regarded as fair.
	Effectively, this scheme runs alongside Jobseekers Plus, and I am not clear to what extent they will overlap: whether they will operate at the same time or, if a person is randomly selected to be part of this scheme, the Jobseekers Plus scheme will not continue to cover them.
	One thing that is relevant in this context is how effective the operation is so far. In another place, the Minister concerned said:
	"Generally, across all the employment zones, we have a total of 11,620 joining the employment zones programme. Of those participants, 2,985—or 26 per cent.—have already moved into work and 1,094—37 per cent. of that 26 per cent.—have sustained their employment for 13 weeks or more. Those are the latest figures from January 2005".—[Official Report, Commons, 13th Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 17/03/05; col. 11.]
	Why the Minister went round that extraordinary way of citing a percentage and then a percentage of a percentage, I am not clear, but what is apparent is that out of a total of about 11,000, only about 8,000 have found jobs that last for more than 30 weeks. That raises the question of whether the scheme is cost-effective.
	Curiously, the Government's statement says that no extra public money is involved, which can mean only either that they over-provided for it under the previous statutory instrument or that somehow a surplus has remained and spun-over. In all events, public money is involved in the scheme as a whole and we must ask: how does the cost to public money compare to the fact that apparently only 10 per cent of the people in the scheme, despite the fact that sanctions are being imposed, are getting jobs that last even 13 weeks or so. We do not know whether they last beyond 13 weeks; we do not appear to have any figures on that.
	The other that strikes me is that this is effectively a scheme that relies on the operation being conducted in zones. I wonder whether that is sensible. The schedule to the order sets out in great detail which those zones are to be in Birmingham and other parts of the country—Glasgow, for example and London. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the scheme is to be extended to one particular London borough: the Evelyn ward of the London Borough of Lewisham, which is now to be linked with the London Borough of Southwark.
	It is relevant to ask in that context whether it is appropriate for the scheme to operate on a zone basis. Restricting allocations to a zone may well mean that people in the London borough of Southwark do not get offered opportunities at the other side of the river, for example, in Canary Wharf. Is the object to get more people into employment or simply to reduce unemployment in a zone?
	It would be helpful to know to what extent contractors involved in the scheme are limited to operating within a zone. Can they seek to place randomly selected candidates in a nearby zone where perhaps the employment opportunities are better? The crucial question is whether the objective is simply to get more people into jobs or only to lower the level of unemployment in a zone? On which of those two bases is the scheme to be evaluated in a year's time? One must hope that by then the Government—no doubt, an incoming Conservative government—will be in a position to evaluate exactly what the scheme is doing and to what extent it has been successful.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I, too thank the noble Baroness for introducing the regulations. Looking at them at 11.20 p.m., I have to say that they are as grim as it gets. There are nine pages of postal codes, which may or may not be designated areas, depending on what the regulations say. Even after re-reading the document, you do not get the feel of what it is about. Yet the Explanatory Notes say:
	"Within Employment Zones private and public/private sector advisers work with participants, providing innovative and flexible solutions to assist them to find sustainable employment".
	Late though it may be, it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could flesh out the details. What does it mean for someone who is unemployed to meet a contractor? How does someone, through meetings and whatever happens, become more employable and indeed employed? It would be useful to be reminded of the nature of the innovation and the flexible solutions.
	As the noble Baroness has indicated, these regulations have been before the House before. We are here to approve them for another year, and there is a promise that we might be asked to do it in a year's time. Where is the scheme at the moment, what monitoring is taking place and how effective is the scheme for participants? It would be useful if the Minister could flesh out the details and give a little information on the scheme's effectiveness.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, if the noble Lord can give me a moment, I will find those figures. We have to be careful about thinking that the figure of 1,000 out of 1,100—which, as he says, is roughly right—represents the sum total of success. Of course, it is a snapshot to begin with. Some of those people will still be going through the system, so it would be right to suspend judgment until we have the longer study.
	I come back to the point that those people present a serious challenge as regards placing in work. In the study, we want to see how the cost-benefit and the effort that we are putting in compares with what we are achieving outside employment zones. The cost per entry for mandated clients without their benefit costs is £1,575 each. With the cost of benefits, that sum rises to £5,550. But as more job outcomes are realised we expect those costs to fall.
	I have dealt with the point about evaluation and I have said something about random allocation in that respect. The other thing to say about random allocation is that it is done using technology: it is not done by people. Clients are allocated to providers by the computer so that it is completely fair. One of the reasons it must be fair when using multiple providers is that you do not want to give all the most difficult clients to the same provider. When we say that it is independent of the effect of the labour market, it means that we are dealing simply with a random selection of people in different situations. They are being dealt with on that individual basis and do not have any choice. Sometimes clients do not want to work with a particular provider and, in that sense, sanctions can operate.
	The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised a point about cost effectiveness. As I have said, cost information indicates that the scheme costs as much per additional job entry as the relevant New Deal. But we will not have the full picture until we do the full evaluation. We will also be looking at different sorts of benefits in that respect.
	The noble Lord also asked to what extent providers are free to place people into work outside the area in which they operate. There are no restrictions. They do not have to operate within the zone. If they are able to find an employer outside the borough or wherever, they can take that opportunity.
	The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, also asked whether the scheme overlaps with the Jobseekers Plus scheme. Once a person has gone through the programme and has not been placed, the person is referred back to the Jobseekers Plus scheme. As I understand it, they are taken out of the Jobseekers Plus scheme for the duration of the programme.
	The noble Lord also asked why we are doing this on a zone basis. I do not know the history of the zoning system in great detail, but I imagine that it follows the creation of education action zones and health action zones. Many of those have been around the same size as the employment zones. They are focused where we find concentrations of multiple deprivation. Sometimes that arises in relatively small neighbourhoods. A concatenation of circumstances arises which needs to be specifically addressed. While that may not be the wisest explanation, it probably covers the history of the system.
	I should like to write to the noble Lord about evaluations within the zones because I shall first take official advice. The point is likely to be more technical than I had realised. Turning to how successful the employment zones have been in helping people to move into employment, we have addressed that and I shall send to both noble Lords further figures to flesh out the picture and provide more context.
	I hope that I have addressed most of the queries that were put to me. When I read Hansard tomorrow—and I am sure that my officials will do so assiduously—if I find that questions have not received a response, I shall be happy to write. In the mean time, I hope that the regulations commend themselves to noble Lords and that they will give them a fair passage.